Jeremy Corbyn first 100 days

[Eric Arthur]

and do you ask yourself why?

 

It's because Labour is suffering with extreme levels of internal strife.

[sgtkate]

It's because Labour is suffering with extreme levels of internal strife.

 

As are the Tories to be fair. Politics is getting very shaken on all sides. Happening all over Europe too. Main parties getting a real run for their money as smaller parties gain support.

[Flanker7]

I got more of the impression that he was stiring up the Labour Party than anything else. Most new party leaders experience a popularity boost when they take over a party before the public work out that they are just another tit. With Corbyn being a relatively unknown backbencher he should have got a double bounce. Instead he flatlined, and if anything is falling away.

But his biggest problem seems to be that he can't even convince his own MPs of his worth. He doesn't seem to be landing a punch on Cameron. Instead the headlines are all about Labour's internal strife.

 

*my bold

 

Corbyn is a man admired, and elected as leader, for his personal stance(s). AND markedly not voted for by the people he needs to lead in the House of Commons. It's not hard to see why a man who voted against his party 25% of the time doesn't get any loyalty, why should they. After all he didn't!

[Eric Arthur]

As are the Tories to be fair. Politics is getting very shaken on all sides. Happening all over Europe too. Main parties getting a real run for their money as smaller parties gain support.

 

If the Conservatives are suffering with extreme levels of internal strife they are keeping it very well hidden.

[Flanker7]

You're right, they are keeping it very well hidden. That's their way of doing things, if at all possible, but the splits are beginning to show now that the European debate is getting going.

[pacifica]

*my bold

 

Corbyn is a man admired, and elected as leader, for his personal stance(s). AND markedly not voted for by the people he needs to lead in the House of Commons. It's not hard to see why a man who voted against his party 25% of the time doesn't get any loyalty, why should they. After all he didn't!

 

The problem there would be that Corbyn's MPs in the Commons were voted there by an electorate many of whose politics may not be those of the current party leader. So there is no guarantee that the centre ground electorate who voted for them in 2015 will do the same after a major left shift come 2020. I'm struggling to see how those votes will be replaced, or where the million or so other votes required for a Labour majority might come from.

After giving the matter a great deal of thought I concluded that they wouldn't be.

[banjodeano]

It's because Labour is suffering with extreme levels of internal strife.

that is indeed true, but everything is catastrophised by the media

even the BBC admit they are biased against Corbyn

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/nick-robinson-tackles-anti-corbyn-bias-at-the-bbc/

so listening to what they say in the media about Corbyn can be taken with a pinch of salt..

the only thing that matters is votes, and as an indicator, in the Oldham by election, Labour saw its majority increase,

although this is not a convincing approval of Corbyn, it does dismiss somewhat the idea that Corbyn is unelectable

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2015 at 11:40 ----------

 

You're right, they are keeping it very well hidden. That's their way of doing things, if at all possible, but the splits are beginning to show now that the European debate is getting going.

this is just going to get worse as the Tories start to voice their independent views.....

[Flanker7]

pacifica - "After giving the matter a great deal of thought I concluded that they [Labour] wouldn't be." [elected]

 

You're probably right.

 

But, don't forget the many, many comments above always harping on about personal popularity, and personality politics. Corbyn is charismatic and if a national movement get's going along the lines of 'We'll show them, we won't be told who to vote for' he will have a chance.'

Will the British electorate do that? - time will tell.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Flanker7

[pacifica]

You're probably right.

 

But, don't forget the many, many comments above always harping on about personal popularity, and personality politics. Corbyn is charismatic and if a national movement get's going along the lines of 'We'll show them, we won't be told who to vote for' he will have a chance.'

Will the British electorate do that? - time will tell.

 

Didn't Arthur Scargill give them that chance a decade or so back using similar policies? How did that go?

 

I think my memory is that he mistook popularity within the NUM for public opinion.

[banjodeano]

You're probably right.

 

But, don't forget the many, many comments above always harping on about personal popularity, and personality politics. Corbyn is charismatic and if a national movement get's going along the lines of 'We'll show them, we won't be told who to vote for' he will have a chance.'

Will the British electorate do that? - time will tell.

I would guess they will, people want a change, that is why Corbyn was elected on such a huge mandate, people have had enough, it also seems to be the case across Europe, people have had enough of the sham called austerity and are starting to elect anti austerity parties

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2015 at 11:51 ----------

 

Didn't Arthur Scargill give them that chance a decade or so back using similar policies? How did that go?

was Scargil the leader of a political party? if so which one?